General
Z. B. STUART, Appellant, v. MANUEL D. ESPINOSA, Respondent
50 Cal. App. 804·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1920·CA
Brief incoming
Source-anchored Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[Civ. No. 3641.
First Appellate District, Division One.
December 23, 1920.]
Z. B. STUART, Appellant, v. MANUEL D. ESPINOSA, Respondent.
Place of Trial — Motion for Change — Bias of Judge — Time for Filing Counter-affidavits.—Order affirmed on authority of Stuart v.' Everly, ante, p. 551, [195 Pao. 701].
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Monterey County denying a motion for change of place of trial. J. A. Bardin, Judge. Affirmed.
. The facts are identical with those in Stuart v. Everly, ante, p. 551.
Z. B. Stuart, in pro. per., C. W. Byrer and J. W. Hooker for Appellant.
Ralph C. McComish for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — THE COURT.]
THE COURT.
It has been stipulated by the parties to this appeal that the facts are identical with those of the case entitled “Z. B. Stuart v. Rose Everly,” ante, p. 551, [195 Pac. 701], and in which the order appealed from was affirmed. For the reasons given at length in that opinion the same result must follow in this case.
The order is affirmed.